FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
COSTS – successful respondent deprived of costs
EVIDENCE – expert evidence – whether expert evidence in matters of law is desirable – use to which such evidence may be put
NEGLIGENCE – solicitors - standard of care - solicitor having or professing to have expertise in particular area of law – standard of care commensurate with expertise - whether retaining counsel absolves solicitor from giving advice – whether solicitor entitled to follow counsel’s advice – barristers – whether junior counsel is required to give advice when senior counsel is retained – immunity from suit – failing to advise on item of compensation not within immunity
VALUATION – compulsory acquisition – method of determining compensation – meaning of market value – comparative method – land residual method - special value – value to the dispossessed owner – land available for immediate development – whether of economic value – whether part of special value
Arkaba Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Highways [1970] SASR 94 followed
Apro Developments Ltd v Province of British Columbia (1977) 15 LCR 97 referred to
Bailey v Isle of Thanet Light Railways Company [1900] 1 QB 722 considered
Baringa Enterprises Pty Ltd v Manly Municipal Council (1965) 15 LGRA 201 applied Chapman v The Minister [1966] 2 NSWR 65 referred to
Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 358 referred to
Commonwealth v Arklay (1951-1952) 87 CLR 159 referred to
Davy-Chiesman v Davy-Chiesman [1984] 1 All ER 324 referred to
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1992-1993) 177 CLR 472 referred to
Duchess of Argyll v Beuselinck [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 172 distinguished
Eagle v Charing Cross Railway Company (1867) 30 LJCP 297 considered
Ergopex Pty Ltd v Meerkin & Apel (1996) V.Con.R 54-550 referred to
Francis v Francis [1956] P 87 referred to
Gianarelliv Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 applied
Greenough v Minister of Lands and Forests) (1974) 10 NSR (2d) 598 referred to
Halifax v S Cunard & Co [1975] 1 SCR 458 referred to
Hawkins v Clayton (1987-1988) 164 CLR 539 followed
Housing Commission of NSW v Falconer (1981) 1 NSWLR 547 followed
Kennedy Street Pty Ltd v The Minister [1963] NSWR 1252 applied
Lake Erie & Northern Railway Co v Brantford Golf and Country Club (1917) 32 DLR 219 discussed
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 referred to
Macrae v Stephens, (unreported, Court of Appeal New South Wales, 18 October 1996) referred to
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Main Roads (Qld) (1978) 19 ALR 453 considered
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp [1979] 1 Ch 384 followed
Minister Administering the Heritage Act 1977 v Haddad (1988) 67 LGRA 438 referred to Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto v Loblaw Groceterias Ltd [1972] SCR 600 discussed
Orchard v South Eastern Electricity Board [1987] 1 QB 565 referred to
Pastoral Finance Association Limited v The Minister [1914] AC 1083 applied
Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Yates Property Corporation v Boland and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1998] FCA 926
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning centred on the role of expert evidence in legal proceedings, noting that while such evidence could be useful, it should not be relied upon as determinative of legal issues. The court found that solicitors possessing expertise in a particular area of law must adhere to a higher standard of care. However, retaining counsel does not absolve a solicitor from the responsibility to provide advice to their client. Furthermore, the court held that junior counsel is not required to give advice when senior counsel is retained. It was also determined that the failure to advise on a matter of compensation did not fall within the immunity from suit.
The court concluded that the appeals were to be allowed, and the orders previously made by Branson J were set aside. The case was to be remitted to another judge for the assessment of damages against the first and third respondents. The first and third respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeals, and the respondents were to pay Ian Francis Yates' costs of his appeal. These decisions were made in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeals be allowed.
2.
The orders made by Branson J on 5 June 1997 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the proceeding be remitted to another Judge of the Court for the assessment of damages against the first and third respondents.
3.
The orders made by Branson J on 14 August 1997 be set aside.
4.
The first and third respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeals in NG 495 of 1997 and NG 716 of 1997.
5.
The respondents pay Ian Francis Yates’ costs of the appeal in NG 717 of 1997.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.